[Bug 629744] Review Request: sparkleshare - sharing work made easy

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Thu Jun 9 12:33:16 UTC 2011

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


Alex Hudson (Fedora Address) <fedora at alexhudson.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
         Depends on|                            |712069

--- Comment #7 from Alex Hudson (Fedora Address) <fedora at alexhudson.com> 2011-06-09 08:33:14 EDT ---
Sorry, I was just in the process of cleaning it up further!

Spec URL: http://alexh.fedorapeople.org/reviews/sparkleshare/sparkleshare.spec

I've also added a dependency to bug #712069, which separates out the
SmartIrc4Net library which is otherwise included within SparkleShare.

The packages are rpmlint clean:

$ rpmlint SPECS/sparkleshare.spec 
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

$ rpmlint SRPMS/sparkleshare-0.2.1-1.fc15.src.rpm 
sparkleshare.src: W: file-size-mismatch sparkleshare-0.2.1.tar.gz = 1413871,
https://github.com/downloads/hbons/SparkleShare/sparkleshare-0.2.1.tar.gz =
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

This warning is because I have packaged an updated copy of the source, which
includes the patch to separate out SmartIrc4Net. I wrote this patch for
SparkleShare, and I'm hopeful that a 0.2.2 release won't be too far away.
Usually I would have done this via a patch, but it's a change early in the
build system which would be a substantial patch to the released (i.e.,
post-autogen) tarball.

$ rpmlint RPMS/x86_64/sparkleshare-0.2.1-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm 
sparkleshare.x86_64: E: no-binary
sparkleshare.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings.

This error/warning I believe is normal for a Mono-based app, as the binaries
are not detected as such.

Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.

More information about the package-review mailing list